Skip to content

OCPP 1.6 native stack #68739

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

ssekar15
Copy link
Collaborator

@ssekar15 ssekar15 commented Feb 8, 2024

Add a support for Open Charge Point Protocol(OCPP v1.6) native stack

Basic support for open charge point protocol v1.6 as native stack with
below functionality

1. Framework for ocpp stack and central system communication using RPC over
   websocket according to occp-j.
2. Core profile with basic PDU

@zephyrbot
Copy link
Collaborator

zephyrbot commented Feb 8, 2024

The following west manifest projects have changed revision in this Pull Request:

Name Old Revision New Revision Diff
json-c 🆕 N/A (Added) linumiz/json-c@dev/zephyr N/A

DNM label due to: 1 added project

Note: This message is automatically posted and updated by the Manifest GitHub Action.

@zephyrbot zephyrbot added manifest manifest-json-c DNM This PR should not be merged (Do Not Merge) labels Feb 8, 2024
@ssekar15 ssekar15 changed the title Ocpp upstream [Draft] OCPP native stack Feb 8, 2024
@zephyrbot zephyrbot removed the DNM This PR should not be merged (Do Not Merge) label Feb 8, 2024
Copy link
Member

@jukkar jukkar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some initial comments, will continue later.

Comment on lines 466 to 467
fn = ctx->cfn[UnlockConnector];
fn(buf, sizeof(buf), resp, uid);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using a fn variable seems pointless just for this one call, why not just do ctx->cfn[UnlockConnector](buf, ....);

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

made for better code readability

@jukkar
Copy link
Member

jukkar commented Feb 8, 2024

If this PR is still a draft (as indicated by the title), you can mark it as a draft in github. Search "Still in progress?" and there is a link at top right hand side of the page.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rlubos rlubos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some initial thoughts. I think such a library should get a separate entry in CODEOWNERS/Maintainers file - IMO it's way too specialized to fall under general "networking" umbrella.

@ssekar15 ssekar15 changed the title [Draft] OCPP native stack OCPP 1.6 native stack Feb 12, 2024
@ssekar15 ssekar15 force-pushed the ocpp_upstream branch 2 times, most recently from aa9e763 to e1b137b Compare February 12, 2024 12:34
@ssekar15
Copy link
Collaborator Author

depends on #66763

Describe OCPP Charge Point (CP) support and illustrate how to implement
CP sample.

Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar <saravanan@linumiz.com>
ssekar15 and others added 5 commits May 21, 2024 12:13
Add test suit for OCPP lib with one complete charging session
with a random meter values.

Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar <saravanan@linumiz.com>
A test sample for ocpp charge point with 2 connectors, central
system steve server is used with test setup (public available)

Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar <saravanan@linumiz.com>
add code owner for OCPP native stack

Signed-off-by: Saravanan Sekar <saravanan@linumiz.com>
add json-c as external module and define CMake ane Kconfig
compialtion control from zephyr tree.

Commit also includes generated header files which are essential
for compilation. config.h typically controls the available
support in the toolchain and the current choice with zephyr
is done using picolibc.

Signed-off-by: Parthiban Nallathambi <parthiban@linumiz.com>
This commit adds the new external json-c modules to the
MAINTAINERS.yml file.

Signed-off-by: Parthiban Nallathambi <parthiban@linumiz.com>
@ssekar15 ssekar15 requested a review from jukkar May 21, 2024 10:36
@kartben kartben dismissed their stale review May 27, 2024 09:48

my comments re: documentation have been addressed - thanks!

Copy link

This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Jul 27, 2024
@jukkar
Copy link
Member

jukkar commented Jul 27, 2024

@ssekar15 are you planning to work on this PR?

@ssekar15
Copy link
Collaborator Author

omments re: documentation have been ad

@jukkar yes for sure... looking for json dependency PR or alternative

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale label Jul 28, 2024
Copy link

This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Sep 26, 2024
@jukkar jukkar removed the Stale label Sep 26, 2024
Copy link

This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Nov 26, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Dec 10, 2024
@ssekar15 ssekar15 reopened this Dec 10, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale label Dec 11, 2024
@kartben
Copy link
Collaborator

kartben commented Dec 11, 2024

@ssekar15 I would suggest putting this PR In draft mode if it's not ready yet. This makes it clearer that it doesn't require attention from reviewers. Thanks!

@fabiobaltieri fabiobaltieri added DNM (manifest) This PR should not be merged (controlled by action-manifest) and removed DNM This PR should not be merged (Do Not Merge) labels Feb 4, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 6, 2025

This pull request has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this pull request will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed pull request at any time.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Apr 6, 2025
@parthitce parthitce removed the Stale label Apr 7, 2025
@ssekar15 ssekar15 marked this pull request as draft April 7, 2025 06:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: Networking area: Process area: Samples Samples DNM (manifest) This PR should not be merged (controlled by action-manifest) manifest manifest-json-c
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants